Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sahdev Brothers Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Sahdev Brothers vs Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 11, 1998
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/694977

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Suit No. 1657/91 & I.A.No.12278/91
Subject
Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 30 & 33--Objections to award--Scope of--No error of law or acts of misconduct pointed out--It is not open to the court to reappraise the evidence and come to the different conclusion--Award made rule of the court. - - 39,825/-.The learned arbitrator has given reasons to arrive a...

Key legal issue
Arbitration
Acts & sections
Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30 and 33

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sahdev Brothers

Advocate Mr. D.P.Sharma, Adv

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Advocate Mr. F. Hassan and ; Mr. Shailesh Kapoor, Advs.

Legal References

Acts
Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 30 and 33
Reported In
1998IIAD(Delhi)647; 1998(1)ARBLR402(Delhi); 72(1998)DLT419; 1998(45)DRJ67; 1998(2)RLR93

Excerpt

arbitration act, 1940 - section 30 & 33--objections to award--scope of--no error of law or acts of misconduct pointed out--it is not open to the court to reappraise the evidence and come to the different conclusion--award made rule of the court. - - 39,825/-.the learned arbitrator has given reasons to arrive at conclusions which are based on appreciation of evidence as well as the documents which have been placed on record. the law is well settled that it will not be open for this court to reappraise the same and arrive at conclusions contrary to the conclusions which have been rendered by the learned arbitrator.c.m. nayar, j.1. the present petition has been filed under section 14 of the arbitration act, 1940 for filing of the award dated 3rd may, 1991 in court and for making the same rule of the court.2. the petitioner was awarded the contract under the name and style of 'construction of a.g.v.c. 1982. sh: construction of parking and widening of existing roads, phase ii.' disputes and differences arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the sole arbitration of shri banarsi dass by the engineer member of the respondent authority who had resigned and the matter was adjudicated by shri r.c.malhotra.the claims and counter claims may be reproduced as below:- 'additional claim no.1: claimants claim rs.40,000/- towards refund of earnest money/security deposit. 'additional claim no.2: claimants submit that rescission should be set aside. additional claim no.3: claimants claim rs.12,000/- on a/c of cost of procure- ment of 800 mm dia pipe np2, which could not be incorporated before the contract was rescinded and had not been allowed to be removed. additional claim no.4: claimants state that action taken under clause 2 be set aside. counter claim no.1: respondents claim rs.1276.80 towards panel rate recovery for cement 2.28 m.t. counter claim no.2: respondents claim rs.32,130/- towards panel rate recovery for bitumen 6.30 m.t. counter claim no.3: respondents claim rs.450/- because of non submission of labour report. counter claim no.4: respondents claim rs.175/- because of non submission of receipt of empty cement bags. counter claim no.5: respondents claim rs.1,50,000/- for the quantity of material found short during technical examination of the work. counter claim no.6: respondents claim rs.1,33,939/- towards balance work got executed at the risk and cost of the claimant/contractor by other agency. counter claim no.7: respondents claim rs.20,628/- towards deduction in rates on a/c of oversize stone aggregate.'4. the only amount which has been awarded in favor of.....

Full Judgment

C.M. Nayar, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing of the Award dated 3rd May, 1991 in Court and for making the same rule of the Court.

2. The petitioner was awarded the contract under the name and style of 'Construction of A.G.V.C. 1982. SH: construction of parking and widening of existing roads, Phase II.' Disputes and differences arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Banarsi Dass by the Engineer Member of the respondent Authority who had resigned and the matter was adjudicated by Shri R.C.Malhotra.

The claims and counter claims may be reproduced as below:-

'ADDITIONAL CLAIM NO.1: Claimants claim

Rs.40,000/- towards

refund of earnest

money/security

deposit.

'ADDITIONAL CLAIM NO.2: Claimants submit

that rescission

should be set

aside.

ADDITIONAL CLAIM NO.3: Claimants claim

Rs.12,000/- on a/c

of cost of procure-

ment of 800 mm dia

pipe NP2, which

could not be

incorporated before

the contract was

rescinded and had

not been allowed to

be removed.

ADDITIONAL CLAIM NO.4: Claimants state that

action taken under

clause 2 be set

aside.

COUNTER CLAIM NO.1: Respondents claim

Rs.1276.80 towards

panel rate recovery

for cement 2.28 M.T.

COUNTER CLAIM NO.2: Respondents claim

Rs.32,130/- towards

panel rate recovery

for bitumen 6.30

M.T.

COUNTER CLAIM NO.3: Respondents claim

Rs.450/- because of

non submission of

labour report.

COUNTER CLAIM NO.4: Respondents claim

Rs.175/- because of

non submission of

receipt of empty

cement bags.

COUNTER CLAIM NO.5: Respondents claim

Rs.1,50,000/- for

the quantity of

material found

short during

technical

examination of

the work.

COUNTER CLAIM NO.6: Respondents claim

Rs.1,33,939/-

towards balance

work got executed

at the risk and

cost of the

claimant/contractor

by other agency.

COUNTER CLAIM NO.7: Respondents claim

Rs.20,628/- towards

deduction in rates

on a/c of oversize

stone aggregate.'

4. The only amount which has been awarded in favor of the petitioner claimant is the refund of earnest money/security deposit which was alleged to be wrongly withheld by the respondent Authority. The Counter Claim No.4 of the respondent was allowed and an Award was made in the sum of Rs.175/-. The total Award in favor of the petitioner claimant is, thereforee, for the amount of Rs.39,825/-. The learned arbitrator has given reasons to arrive at conclusions which are based on appreciation of evidence as well as the documents which have been placed on record. The law is well settled that it will not be open for this Court to reappraise the same and arrive at conclusions contrary to the conclusions which have been rendered by the learned arbitrator. The learned counsel for the respondent Authority has not been able to assail the findings of the learned arbitrator and no error of law not acts of misconduct have been pointed out at the time of hearing. The objections of the respondent Authority as a consequence are dismissed. The Award dated 3rd May, 1991 is made rule of the Court and decree in terms thereof is passed. The petitioner claimant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of decree till realisation. There will be no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial